Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rumsfeld Responsible for Torture, Report Says
The Senate Armed Services Committee report accuses Rumsfeld and his deputies of being the principal architects of the plan to use harsh interrogation techniques on captured fighters and terrorism suspects, rejecting the Bush administration's contention that the policies originated lower down the command chain.
"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the panel concludes. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."
The report, released by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., and based on a nearly two-year investigation, said that both the policies and resulting controversies tarnished the reputation of the United States and undermined national security. "Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority," it said.
The panel's investigation focused on the Defense Department's use of controversial interrogation practices, including forced nudity, painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and use of dogs. The practices, some of which had already been adopted by the CIA at its secret prisons, were adapted for interrogations at Guantanamo Bay and later migrated to U.S. detention camps in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the infamous Abu Ghraib prison.
"The Committee's report details the inexcusable link between abusive interrogation techniques used by our enemies who ignored the Geneva Conventions and interrogation policy for detainees in U.S. custody," McCain, himself a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, said in a statement. "These policies are wrong and must never be repeated."
White House officials have maintained the measures were approved in response to demands from field officers who complained that traditional interrogation methods weren't working on some of the more hardened captives. But Senate investigators, relying on documents and hours of hearing testimony, arrived at a different conclusion.
The true genesis of the decision to use coercive techniques, the report said, was a memo signed by President Bush on Feb. 7, 2002, declaring that the Geneva Convention's standards for humane treatment did not apply to captured al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. As early as that spring, the panel said, top administration officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, participated in meetings in which the use of coercive measures was discussed. The panel drew on a written statement by Rice, released earlier this year, to support that conclusion.
In July 2002, Rumseld's senior staff began compiling information about techniques used in military survival schools to simulate conditions that U.S. airmen might face if captured by an enemy that did not follow the Geneva conditions. Those techniques - borrowed from a training program known as Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape, or SERE - included waterboarding, or simulated drowning, and were loosely based on methods adopted by Chinese communists to coerce propaganda confessions from captured U.S. soldiers during the Korean war.
The SERE program became the template for interrogation methods that were ultimately approved by Rumsfeld himself, the report says. In the field, U.S. military interrogators used the techniques with little oversight and frequently abusive results, the panel found.
"It is particularly troubling that senior officials approved the use of interrogation techniques that were originally designed to simulate abusive tactics used by our enemies against our own soldiersand that were modeled, in part, on tactics used by the Communist Chinese to elicit false confessions from U.S. military personnel," the report said.
Defenders of the techniques have argued that such measures were justified because of al-Qaida's demonstrated disregard for human life. But the panel members cited the views of Gen. David Petraeus, now the head of U.S. Central Command, who in a May, 2007 letter to his troops said humane treatment of prisoners allows Americans to occupy the moral high ground.
"Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right," wrote Petraeus, who at the time was the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
125 Comments so far
Show AllI want to see indictments for war crimes against Rumsfeld.
I agree. There will never be any true justice and the world will never see us as anything but torturing thugs unless Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney and Bush are behind bars, or at least on trial for war crimes.
Hoytdouglas,
There is no doubt in my mind that you are right on the money.
Indicting these thugs is a sine qua non condition if the United States is to change its present status as a low-life nation.
And make no mistake about our being exactly that in world opinion.
So, where's the indictment? A confession/charge is one thing, but for this report to make any point - for the goal of preventing torture by us officials in the future - trials must follow. Or is this thing just to be a whitewash mei culpa?
won't GWB just pardon the lot of them? or is it beyond the authority of the president to pardon a war crime?
GGOTG: some nice short blog entries answering your questions (better than I can summarize), are by Marjorie Cohn, law professor and President of the National Lawyers Guild on her website: www.marjoriecohn.com The folks who wrote, authorized and set up/carried out torture violate international law, law that the US is party to but if the US doesn't prosecute, there are other countries that can under "universal jurisdiction", such as Spain did with Pinochet.
First you'll have to explain how they violated US Criminal law to need a pardon.
Not so.
If Obama TRULY wants to steer our country in a better direction, we must pressure him to appoint a non-partisan special prosecutor (suggestions: John W. Dean, Bruce Fein, Elizabeth de la Vega, Philippe Sands) to THOROUGHLY investigate ALL the war crimes committed in the last eight years and indict ALL those responsible for them, Republican, Democrat, or other.
Then public trials must be held, followed by judgement and sentencing.
Failure or refusal to do this further weakens what is left of our democratic republic by destroying any remaining respect for justice and law after the lawlesness of the last eight years.
REAL "change" would be all the U.S. war criminals in the Bush administration and their accomplices of both parties in Congress put on trial and sentenced to life imprisonment for all the death and suffering they caused.
Sioux Rose
ED: Good list, and I think Bugliosi might be added to it, as well.
and the sad thing is, unless mistaken in my observation, he ALREADY has done the "pelosi" thing:
pelosi : "impeachment is OFF the table" -- EVEN IF SHE ad CONGRESS ARE REQUIRED at the absolute highest requirement by US constitution to HOLD impeachment hearings leading to removal from office of bush,cheney since 2 years ago.
OBAMA's version is:
"...i don't want to focus on something that will be percieved as the party making a witchhunt of republicans....we must move on to more important matters..there are many problems"........
even IF the HIGHEST SINGLE PROBLEM is the REPUTATION and MORALITY of the USA itself on which it is SUPPOSEDLY founded!!
Patrick Fitzgerald. This is absolutely the right thing to do. I'm so sick of hearing about impeachment. The bush family has been doing this since at least the 1820' - 30's. Collect their pelf and render them to the lower 9th ward under the auspices of FEMA. All of them.
Time for the Justice Department to issue indictments. These crimes are covered in the War Crimes Act of 1996, and that law calls specifically for the death penalty if deaths resulted from torture. There have been many documented deaths of "enemy combatants" in US custody, resulting from torture. Those who ordered these atrocities should face the death penalty. That list includes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Powell and many many more who facilitated these acts of brutal savagery and cowardice.
The only way Americans can ever hold their heads high in future, and say truthfully that "Americans don't torture", is if these criminals are made to pay the price specified by the law. No man, or woman, is above the law. Good words, but meaningless when they are not enforced. Time to enforce the law and bring these cowards to justice.
Did you mean the Justice Department that Bush packed with lawyers who are friendly to his administration? THAT Justice Department?
We will have along wait.
Unfortunately, yes. But, fortunately, there will be a "new" Justice Dept. soon, and hopefully, the magnitude of the crimes will simply be undeniable. It's my hope that the incoming AG will be aggressive with this criminality, and will pursue indictments with criminal charges to suit the crimes. If this doesn't happen, then it is up to the international community to track these war criminals and bring them to justice if they EVER set foot in any country that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. That is one of the responsibilities of the signatories, to make sure if they do enter their countries, they be taken into custody...like they did with Pinochet...a man who had been protected by former CIA Director (and US President) George H.W. Bush, even after it was known that he had ordered a terrorist attack within the borders of the United States (as part of Operation Condor). This attack saw the assassination of Orlando Letelier (foreign minister under President Salvador Allende) and his American associate, Ronni Moffitt, in a car bombing in Washington D.C., while Bush was CIA Director.
It is most definitely past time to take the gloves off with these psychopaths. Time to enforce the law, be it international or domestic.
Our "carpet bombing" of European and Japanese cities at the end of WW2 demonstrates, I think, that we ourselves regard human lives as something akin to rug lice. Necrophilia is universal, and will drive the human enterprise as long as we remain convinced that only our "enemies" are afflicted by it.
It looks like Bush and Rummy et al are in for a good scolding. But as for the practice of torture never happening again, I'd say it will proceed without a pause. Legislation without consequences equals permission.
busterkikki
Some of you writers continue to refer to WWII activities which, if I am not mistaken, you had no participation in or knowledge of why this was considered necessary. The War in Europe was deadly. The Americans made it possible for thousands of Russian soldiers and officers to escape their POW camps so that these people would not have to surrender to their own side -- the Russian side, knowing that instant death awaited them. The same sort of thought dictated that Germany be razed to the ground in its major cities to help prevent the ressurection of the German threat and, quite frankly to make them so sick of war that they would never start another one--and they haven't.
The atom bomb killed lots of Japanese instead of lots of Americans. The Japanese were preparing to fight to the end, which would have been okay with us at the time with the exception that we might lose another million casualties. We were not prepared to accept that fate for the Americans, so we bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. We could have bombed Tokyo, Nagoya, Nara, Sasebo and dozens of Japanese targets that offered more Japanese deaths and destruction of their society forever. We chose to force the Japanese to stop fighting once and for all and accept the unconditional surrender (which admittedly may have been a mistake for them and the Germans as well) as we had warned them. That decision, including carpet bombing was done in 1944 and 1945. Any criticism at this time is from today's viewpoint, which is based on different aspects. To criticize the behavior and conduct of the U.S. conduct of WWII is not worthy of you or anyone else who didn't have to make the choices available to our government 67 years ago. From a East Asia Veteran
You are quite right. But you missed a few other points that were running thru the minds of the people who led the war against germany in the forties. They had already lived thru one war that germany was blamed for - wwi - and that war did grow from the grievances of a previous war - Franco-Prussian - that the Germans did start. As far as the air campaigns go, the germans were the first to start targeting civvies, but not in 1940, nor in the Spanish Civil war of the 30s, and we'll not blame the Brits for gassing the Kurds in the 20s, back in 1915 the first Zeplins started to drop incindiary bombs in England and France. If you think the second war was nasty, take a closer look at the first one - even though the usa didn't really fight much in that one. The F-P war saw the Prussians laying a siege on Paris that reduced the citizens of that city to eating their cats - as well as the rats, horses and dogs...
As nasty as we know the atomic bombs to be, even the scientists who led the project didn't know exactly what would happen to people when the bombs went off. At the first test there were those who thought they'd kill all life on earth with the first detonation of the Trinity test. I do think they'd have used them EVEN knowing what we know about the bombs, and they'd have been right to have done so. Having used them, they demonstrated what the result would be of using more than 2, had they not dropped them I have no doubt the usa and the ussr would have been more willing to go into a hot war that would have destroyed us all.
No you are wrong. Bombing non military targets is and was a war crime. Using an atom bomb was just a new method of war crime in WWII. Remember Rottendam, Holland and Dresden, Germany were bombed into rubble by the Germans in the first case and the Brits in the second case.
The USA bombing Tokoyo, Japan into rubble in March of 1945, another war crime.
Bombing civilians is a leadership decision for which the leadership should have been held accountable.
The atom bomb could have been used to bomb the Japanese fleet in harbor, therefore attacking appropriate targets and demonstrating the power of that weapon.
By July '45 Japan didn't have a fleet, most of it had been sunk.
War crime to attack civvies? Yes, but think of it from their point of view. What options did they have? Call a cop and have the police arrest Hitler? Sure they could have not decended to the level that the germans did (they didn't really, unless you think that the bombing of german civies was the moral equivalant of gassing the jews and others in the death camps) But that would have been unacceptable to the people who were the victims of the bombs dropped by the germans. The allies did unto the axis what the axis did unto them. Have you ever talked to someone who lived thru the blitz? That's the point that most historians make when talking about historical events, you can't judge them based on what you now know.
Had the yanks invaded Japan they'd have killed far more civvies than those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had they blockaded Japan, they'd have killed more civvies than died at H+N.
Talking about attacking civvies and war crimes... It's only been a war crime to attack civvies since the late 19th early 20th century. In earlier wars most civvies were able to keep away from the fighting until their cities were besieged, and then if the walls fell the civvies were slaughtered or enslaved. We'd like to think that we're more civilized than the Romans were, but we're not. There is a greater likelyhood that these days people who launch wars will be held to account, but there is no guarantee of that. Even Rummy might slip away - like Kissinger, Nixon, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and thousands of other leaders who've gotten away with murder, torture, genocide, waging wars of agression.
.You are wrong about at least one thing, The Japanese military was desperately seeking a reason that would allow them to surrender with honor. This has been documented by letters and statements from high ranking officers and the Emperor himself. Further, the two targets Nagasaki and Hiroshima, were chosen specifically for their geography, both were situated in bowl shaped depressions maximizing the affects of the bombs. They had little if any military value.
Every choice can be criticized, and the passage of time and disclosure of information makes such criticisms actually rather valid. One certainly did not have to be there to be a student of history and express an opinion about events. Why do you seem so eager to suppress opinions?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Some of them, not all. Even after H+N there were those in Japan who were willing to commit mass suicide. You're focusing on what was acceptable to the Japanese, and ignoring what was acceptable to the allies. The allies demanded unconditional surrender, they were winning and the Japanese had no chance of victory by '45, why on earth should the allies have reduced their demands? What makes you think that option would have been acceptable to the people who lived in the usa at that time?
By the way, I'm not suppressing your opinion. I'm disagreeing with it. Grin.
.Not to worry.....I love an honest debate.
I can certainly think of one good reason for the allies to modify their demands for the surrender of Japanese forces, two reasons actually. Fat Man and Little Boy would not have been dropped. This was simply a waiting game, the Japanese military was trapped in their code of Bushido :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido
Any attempts at negotiation at this point would have quickly derived a surrender on terms acceptable to everyone. I would make clear that I do understand the climate of that time, the sneak attack that started the war, the hard fought campaign that had resulted in Japan's imminent defeat. But for crying out loud, we dropped two nuclear weapons on two civilian targets in a nation depleted of any ability to continue resistance.....An invasion would never have been necessary, only a waiting game. Do you not find that a far better decision?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Blockades are expensive, so was building the bombs. Could you imagine the reaction of the public in 45/46 when they found out how much was spent on building a weapon that was never used? The pol's certainly took that into account. Moreover, they never seriously considered the option of a blockade, invasion was what would have stopped the war faster than a blockade so from Truman's perspective the option was bomb, then invasion if no surrender. The arguement that they were civvie targets is questionable, the Japanese empire had conscripted everyone by that point of the war, like Hitler's Germany they too had a home guard that would have fought like the people in Okinawa. By the standards of the day both H+N were military targets, heck by the standards of this day and age they would be legit targets, just ask the people who live in Iraq and Afghanistan who are getting hit by airstrikes of which few complain (and none of those complaints are comming from major world leaders - useless yankeebuttkissing wankers that they are.)
150k-300k died from the initial effect of the bomb, that we know. What you're trying to argue is that it would be more humane if many more people had died of starvation from blockade - not to mention the firebombing of the Japanese cities that would have been continued. You are also arguing with knowledge they did not have at the time, they didn't know what the effects of the bomb would be on humans, nor were they certain that Japan wasn't pulling a fast one when putting out feelers to the Ruskies about a negotiation - not that the west trusted the Ruskies fully at that point anyhow...
By 1945 the British Empire had been bankrupted by fighting a long war - series of wars actually - Truman didn't want to do the same to the usa by letting the war drag on until 46-perhaps '50, a blockade would have taken years to resolve and might have bankrupted the usa in the end.
Although given bush's series of wars you guys might not be far off from banko, eh? Perhaps, like Al Capone, you'll nail the crooks like rummy for economic crimes rather than the multiple murders or tortures that have been committed.
.I am sorry that you seem to value cash over human life, perhaps it is simply a bad choice of words to defend the use of two atom bombs in terms of the bottom line. I did not mention a blockade and do not know why you do either.Whom were we blockading? The Japanese fleet was sunk, the military defenseless and defeated. The surrender of Japan was a mere couple of weeks away when those bombs were dropped according to some historians and the planned invasion was yet one year away.
There are some who claim that the dropping of those two bombs was meant as a message to the Soviet Union and Stalin:
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=719
In any case, we are the only nation on the face of this earth to have used nuclear weapons against other human beings and I hope that we are the last to ever do so.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I hope you're the last nation ever to use those weapons as well. It's not that I value money over human life, I mentioned cash because of what the bomb cost to develop. Had they not been dropped the political party that authorized that expenditure would have been crucified at the polls. War costs money as well as human life, the money spent was huge, certainly more than the current us debt (taking into account the value of today's economy compared to that of the usa in the '40s)
I brought up the blockade because that is what the usa launched against Japan in 1941, at the time it was first called unrestricted submarine warfare, and that sunk 80 percent of japan's merchie fleet and a good chunk of it's armed navy. It costs money to send ships to sea, to maintain them at sea, and it does kill people. Japan didn't have enough land area to grow enough food for the population, hence sinking all of their cargo ships meant that Japan starved. Is a fast death better than a slow one?
Alongside of the blockade, there was the airial bombardment of Japan. That campaign would also have continued, and as bad as the atom bombs were the conventional munitions were just as capable of killing massive numbers of people as the Abomb was.
As much of a message was sent to the leaders of the west when those bombs were used. Had they not used them, I think it's quite likely that leaders like Kennady and Kruchev would have had much less desire to avoid a major war between NATO and the Warsaw pact than they had... I end up damning the fact that the weapons were built, but do think that they prevented larger wars from breaking out in the last 60 years. Prior to 1950 a major war broke out nearly every 20-30 years, and those wars killed off millions each time. We've not had a war that's ended up killing billions of people...
I agree with something Churchill said about war, it's the ultimate crime from which all others follow. Best not to commit the first act, and do one's best to jail (or hang) those who do.
.Its nice that we have areas of agreement, and normal that we also have some areas of disagreement as well. I would say the final agreement that we never again see such actions is enough .
We devalue human life far too often and cherish it rarely.
"It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity." Albert Einstein
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I disagree somewhat. There was a third possible American strategy available against Japan, while you use the usual dichotomy of 'invade and take a million casualties' or 'nuke Japan from a safe distance'.
The American strategy that would also have won, and at less human cost than an invasion, was a blockade of the Japanese islands. Their military would have been without the weapons of war and unable to connect troops in the Home Islands with those in China. The Emperor would have given up sooner or later, in order to save his people.
The Japanese navy at the end of the war consisted of one cruiser, I am told. All the rest were sunk, even many ships that were still in the process of being built. At the same time, America boasted approx. 80 carriers and thousands of other ships and this absolute disparity of resources existed in almost all other areas that matter to winning war.
The only advantage America did not have was strong and smart leadership. FDR was dying and VP Truman was told nothing about the bomb. A number of bad decisions were made, due to this deficit.
The American people wanted the boys home and continuing the war with a long and slow blockade would have needed leadership that was unavailable to America.
Blockades work, because they use time. Invasions use people and nukes use science.
Perhaps America was just too lazy to do it the humane and efficient way, and wanted to get it over quick and also punish the enemy who 'deserved what he got'. No?
Blockade would have included food, hence mass death from starvation. Japan's navy and merchant navy was decimated, but they did still have a few heavy ships, nothing that could have broken a blockade though. You're also forgetting the cost involved, yes an invasion would have cost lives and money, but a proper blockade aimed at forcing a Japanese surrender would have cost far more in terms of money and lives.
Not using the bomb in '45 would have made it more likely that the bomb would have been used later. Not knowing the effects the bomb would have on humans would have removed the fear that civilization could end if the leader's used the weapon.
The Japanese were attempting to surrender but the USA wanted to test new death toys and send a message to the Russians.
We are all allowed to criticize history, even the illegal war you may have participated in.
If you desire the words of a person whom took part in these crimes I suggest a viewing of The Fog of War. McNamara states, had he been on the losing side he surely would have been convicted of War Crimes. A little late in the game but he was man enough to be honest. Perhaps for McNamara, going to the grave knowing he was guilty of mass murder was too heavy a weight to bear.
McNamara _was_ on the losing side in that war. But was neither charged nor convicted.
I think the key thing to learn from past wars is how and why they started, as well as doing what is possible to avoid another one starting. It's crucial to hold those who commit war crimes to account, not just the ones who've lost the war either. If only the losers are convicted than all we accomplish is victor's justice, or revenge. Revenge just leads you to fight the next war a bit sooner. Mind you, we can't throw entire nations in jail, nor is it justice to blame the kids for what their parents did... The whole issue is skewed by the fact that people will do whatever they think they need to do when faced with their own survival.
Well, duhh!
What took you bums so long to discover that? Let me guess--it was probably cross checking all the footnotes in Ron Susskind's book, "The Way of the World". So when are you going to finally figure out that both Bush and Cheney were animating all this garbage?
For what reason is this whole crew (*) not being prosecuted for war crimes? If you cannot do it, I am sure the International Court of Justice in the Hague could perform the chore.
(*) Feith, Cambone, Yoo, Addington, Wolfowitz, "Fredo" Gonzalez, Ashcroft, Gen. Jeffrey MIller, and Condoleezza Rice--anal orifrices, the whole bunch.
Poet
Poet:Hi. See my reply to GottaGetOffTheGrid re www.marjoriecohn.com or see her short postings on her blog. Law professor, Pres. of National Lawyers Guild. (Do you know how I can do an email account with only my screen name?)
I can help with that. Gmail is great,(my 12-year-old granddaughter recommended it...so what was I to say!?) and I like it more than my Hotmail account. It's free, lots of benefits (humongous space so you never have to delete an email, and a neat way of storage).
Simply go the the Google page and click on Gmail at the top, and then on the next page, click on "Sign up for Gmail" (bottom right).
When you sign up, they want you name (first and last) but you can choose your own "Desired Login Name", as long as it's available. If 'NYCartist' is not available, you can add a number (NYCartist1) or a letter (NYCartiste)...giving it a French look...??, etc.
You can also change your existing name in Hotmail in: Options (upper right-hand side), Personal (upper left-hand side), and My profile, and put in there for 1st name what you want people to see. You can test that by putting in what you want, shutting down Hotmail and launching it again (otherwise, it won't take), and then send yourself an email to check it.
Hope this helps.
getreal:thanks. I don't know how to register/send the email so only the screen user name NYCartist shows, without my real name also. Can you explain?
For the address, you can choose whatever is available. You try, test for availability, and if it's a go, it's a go. But I think you understand that part.
In Hotmail (and most emails I think), whatever you put in "First name", when configuring My Profile, that's what appears to let your recipients know who sent them an email...the first thing we look at when we have a new email....Who is it from?
So in Hotmail, you get to My Profile this way: Options (upper right-hand side), then Personal (upper left-hand side), My Profile (just to the right of Personal. In there, whatever you put as "First name" is what recipients see.
But you must shut down Hotmail, and open it and log back in for the changes to take effect. (after you've made the changes)
I hope that's clearer; I knew I hadn't been clear the first time.
So if I understand, you want an email addresse called: NYCartist@whatever.com and for people to see that they got an email from NYCartist... (and not reveal your name...?)
If that's it, what I explained should work.
So when does the trial start?
.The trial will start when good citizens like you and I absolutely insist upon the type of government we deserve, and not one moment sooner.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Right after Bushwacker pardons Rummy!
The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime, perpetrated by the Bush lot -- when will they be charged???
What makes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, think they're any better than Milosevic, Karadzic, Pinochet, Tojo or Goering? All of these faced justice. Round up the Bushies--all of them--a fly them off to the Hague. Let the world judge these people for the vermin that they are.
Yup yup yup!
Is there any way to go after religious leaders, particularly so-called "Christians", who endorsed and voraciously advocated for all this? Boy-oh-boy, in Mormon country, where I live, there's plenty of bloodlust among the clergy, especially when it comes to anyone challenging our Jesus-endorsed American supremecist way of life.
I know this is a little late, but remember that holy man Pat Robertson openly calling for the assassination of a foreign leader? (Hugo Chavez)
What if it had been a Mullah making that call. If the Mullah was Palestinian, the Isrealis would rocket or car bomb his house, killing his family and a few neighbors, at least.
If it was in Iraq or Afghanistan, we'd either bomb the shit out of any location we even suspected harbored him, or we'd capture him, or buy him off of a proxy, parade him in front of the world as a captive, and torture him for that oh-so-reliable gibberish we love so much.
But of course, God's on our side, not theirs, so whatever we do is A-OK.
As far as our war criminals go, I agree, I don't think we deserve the word's respect if we do any less than round up the official perpetrators of these crimes and publically try them. I mean full due process, which is pretty generous given that they regard it as "quaint" when applied to others. It would be interesting to see Mr. Yoo's theories get him frog-marched to the gallows.
If they are found guilty of capital crimes, hanging should remain an option.
So be it. Let the wave go through. Iplacable compassion defeats the demons, if you can do it.
The entire bunch of them should be prosecuted and charged but, they never will be. They will get away with the crimes they have committed the whole lot of them! This administration is shameful, as I have stated before. What has happened with this senseless War and the travesty at Guantanemo
Bay and in other prisons in this Country and around the world is unspeakable in injustice. And injustice and torture will continue. The crimes against the poor will never stop, the crimes against humanity will never stop.
But don't you see that most Americans are equally guilty?
Looking for scapegoats is wrong. After all, Americans elected Bush and the Neocons. Twice! They went along with the belief that America was the greatest country in the history of the world, that Americans should run the world using military force, that Americans should consume more of the world's resources than anyone else, that America was a special nation that God blessed, that America was the law, etc, etc.
Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone!
www.dangerouscreation.com
DavidG:The Supreme Court selected Bush in 2000. There's a lot of law that holds the folks who designed the policy and then carried it out as responsible for their actions. I
"don't see that most Americans are equally guilty". There was opposition all along from many. You have a broad point, but not in the policy for torture, which was/is illegal.
NYCartist, there's an old saying that people get the Government they deserve! Do you agree with this statement?
And given the actions of Obama thus far, do you think he's really going to be much different to Bush?
My latest article is called: OBAMA: ARE YOU CRAZY? I invite you to read it if you have time.
www.dangerouscreation.com
I read your article and I'm afraid you are right. I had hope
that Obama would be different but now I'm afraid it will be
more of the same bullshit piled higher and deeper. He got my
vote this time but unless things change in the ME, he will not
get it in 2012.
In order to stop this madness the Federal Reserve needs to be shut down along with the IRS. It is either them or us!